We previously reported on the Language Creation Society's ("LCS") amicus brief in the case of Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Axanar Productions, Inc.,[1] over whether the artificial, but useable, "Klingon" language could by copyrighted by its original commissioners at Paramount.

On May 3, 2016, Paramount filed an opposition to the amicus brief, on the grounds that it was untimely filed and that it asked the court to make rulings on issues not properly before it at this stage.[2] While our admiration for the wit and research that went into the LCS's brief is great, Paramount's arguments are not without merit: 

An application to file an amicus brief should be denied when it addresses issues that are not before the court or issues that are not necessary for the Court’s disposition of the motion at issue. See Juniper Networks v. Shipley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24889, 94 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1934 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2010)(denying motion for leave to file amicus brief when the brief addressed an issue that the court would not even reach); Gingery v. City of Glendale, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107598 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014)(denying request to appear as amicus curiae when “none of the information provided by the proposed Amicus applicants [wa]s necessary for the Court’s disposition of the present motions”). In its application and amicus brief, LCS is asking the Court for an advisory opinion on whether fictional languages are copyrightable. This is not at issue in the motion to dismiss. At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court will determine whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence of their Star Trek Copyrighted Works and whether Plaintiffs have alleged infringement by the Defendants. The Court has not been asked to perform a substantial similarity analysis at this stage of the proceeding, and especially not to determine the independent copyrightability of the Klingon language (or fictitious languages in general) outside of context of Star Trek works. As Plaintiffs pointed out in their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, the use of the fictitious Klingon language in Defendants’ Axanar works is merely one aspect of the Star Trek Copyrighted Works that can be considered at a later point in the substantial similarity analysis.[3]

Reaction to the dispute has been varied:

• At Quartz, Corrine Purtill writes on how “[a] legal battle about the Klingon language could affect the future of computer programming.”​

• The laypersons at Mental Floss picked up on a fascinating tidbit that many legal scholars, including us, overlooked:

5. BECAUSE KLINGON LACKS A WORD FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, THEY COIN ONE.
It’s yab bang chu, or “mind property law.” The very fact that they can do this helps make the case that Klingon is an algorithm, or system of creation, and thus cannot be copyrighted.

• Radio Motherboard has a podcast on “The Battle for the Klingon Language.”

• PRI.org similarly reports on the topic at some length: “Why a lawyer wrote a legal brief partially in Klingon.”​

• And for no particular reason, courtesy of YouTube, we treat you to a scene from A Klingon Christmas Carol and a documentary-style piece on Shakespeare being performed in the “original Klingon,” complete with Hamlet’s soliloquy.

[1] Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Axanar Productions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.) (Amicus Br. Apr. 27, 2016).
[2] Paramount Pictures Corporation v. Axanar Productions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09938-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.) (Opp. Br. May 3, 2016). As used herein, “Opp. Br. at __” refers to this brief.
[3] Opp. Br. at 3 (some internal citations omitted).